My opinions on the game of rugby have not won me many fans, and this one certainly won’t given the current trends in Springbok rugby.
When I started out in sport (after my playing days) I did sports analysis. This covered many different codes of sport but later (luckily) got me more involved with rugby.
Now as we all know, statistics in the wrong hands is a very dangerous thing, simply because of the fact that statistics are meaningless without a common reference point for collecting and analysing statistics.
As an example, having assisted many coaches in analyzing their teams, coach A would ask me to compile and analyze the statistics of let’s say his number 8. Another coach will ask me the same but the statistics supplied was as different as night from day, simply because their reference points for wanting the analyze the statistics were vastly different.
The reason for this is very simple, the teams they coached had different strengths and weaknesses, which meant that whatever they analyzed, or the ‘type’ of player they required at number 8 to compliment their strengths and game plan, were vastly different.
And it is this point, your strengths and your game plan which again leads me to believe South Africa is starting to fall into the trap of trying to play a game we are not good at.
This has nothing to do with Peter de Villiers so-called ‘expansive’ game plan. You can add any dimension, including an attacking dimension to any team if you have covered the basics of the game well, and ensure that you do the simple things right first to ensure you possession and territory to execute ANY type of game plan.
As an analyst early on I also realised one very important thing, rugby is a very simple game, and unfortunately statisticians or analyst only use figures and numbers to either confuse people, or cover their flaws.
Any coach worth his salt will firstly look at what he has available to him. He will then identify strengths and weaknesses and devise a plan (game plan) to compliment those strengths, and eliminate most weaknesses.
For all Jake White’s petty faults, he was damn good at this – and guess what, he was also at one time simply a rugby analyst… 😉
In 2006 there was an uproar in South Africa for Jake to include Luke Watson, at the time, the best ‘fetcher’ in SA Rugby according to most.
This year there was a similar outcry, for one Heinrich Brüssow, and the only difference between 2009 and 2006, is that the fans calling for his inclusion, got their wish.
Now where I lost most people in my point I have always tried to make is that I did not, and still do not claim or believe either Watson in 2006 or Brüssow today are bad ‘fetchers’. In fact, I do think they are and were the best we have in South Africa and is probably the closest we have if compared to George Smith and Richie McCaw.
the best we have in South Africa and is probably the closest we have if compared to George Smith and Richie McCaw…
Now perhaps if I highlight this people will understand my problem with this issue.
We should NEVER try and find players to combat the strengths of OPPOSITION teams because it affects our OWN strengths, and although our players will prove to be successful a lot of time against our opposition team’s individuals it will not be long before they figure out ways to eliminate this threat which is now already starting to happen – because you know what, opposition teams analyze us even more than what we analyze ourselves in my view!
And the main problem comes in that it is easy to eliminate a threat in any opposing team if that threat is a singular threat, and not a collective threat, I know, it was my job to identify this.
In simpler terms, if the main threats in your opposition is one or two players it is easy to combat it, it is however damn difficult to combat a collective threat or strength if 5 or 8 or 10 guys shares and combines their collective strengths!
Let me try and explain this from an analytical and practical point of view.
Two very important statistics coaches look at is positional (where on the field in relation to length and width), and strike rates of using possession in different areas of the park. Now from an analysis point of view the rugby pitch can be divided in up to 25 areas or zones, each with different outcome based scenarios according to the game plan you want to employ. A certain area of the field will be mapped out in blue for instance and the game plan strategy determine the action required in this zone, for instance blue areas will be defined as defensive kicking zones and the success of the ‘strike rate’ will determined by the outcome of the play makers (kickers) in this zone and how successful they were in executing their actions (kicks).
The only reason I made the above example is simply to illustrate that ‘strike rates’ do not normally apply to points scored alone but all of it, possession and strike rate success forms part of an overall game plan, and when a game is analyzed or game plan devised players are coached to these specifics.
Another quick example perhaps that will make you understand this better is that let’s assume green zones in the game plan, would suggest that if ever we get a penalty kick in that area (between opposition 10 meter and goal line), we take a scrum and not line outs as our scrum is a strength, and line-out is a weakness.
It is not complicated even if it may sound like it. It is a very simple approach to rugby and of course colour codes help the fatties understand the game plan better!!!
The importance is the possession and strike rate statistics which forms part of the overall game plan of the team – a game plan which compliments strengths.
Apart from these statistics and references which is positional related (where you are), the most important statistics is the relation of the ball from the ground in your game plan.
In simple terms it means whether your team is good at playing or attacking from playing the ball from the deck, or keeping it in the air.
Let’s consider a practical example.
Ever wondered why Australia (and to a lesser extent NZ) are very good in building phases? Up to 10 and 15 and even more at times?
Quite simple, it is the game they play and it is one of their strengths.
If you are a team reliant on building phases to break down defenses you are a team that prefers playing the ball from the deck, i.e. carry the ball, try and cross the advantage line, go to ground, and do it again and again.
Now quite simply, if this is the type of game you play, you need to pick the type of players to compliment this game plan or strength, and what better type of player to pick for deck play than a deck play specialist, or the ‘fetcher’ who specialises in this area of rugby?
And here ladies and gentleman is where the Springboks are starting to get it wrong again.
Our strength is not deck play or phase play, never was. Our strength is our ball carrying ability, strike running and brutal defense, which rely quite heavily on your bigger than average players. In short, our strength has always been, and is coached still today at all levels, in keeping the ball in the air as much as possible.
The much vaunted Jake White line-out philosophy as our premier attacking platform is an extension of this and it is something White realised very quickly when he became coach – as to where our strengths lie. Our maul currently has no equal in world rugby, it is a strength, and it is keeping the ball in the air. Which is why if we revisit the zones discussed earlier you will find that in most instances, the Boks will try and force line-outs in the game, as it plays to their strength. The kicking game we employed successfully in the opening Tri-Nations games takes their forwards out of the game and most importantly, their ability to start their phase plays.
When we are successful at rucks, we have always employed greater numbers to rucks and used physical strength to dominate this area. Which is also the reason all 15 players in our team are (or were under White) regarded as ‘fetchers’ and led to Jaque Fourie being the backline player with more impressive turn over ball and tackles than most loose forwards in international rugby.
It is simple rugby gentleman, and it is the reason why I am saying, and have been saying that neither Brüssow or Watson are bad players, or fetchers, they are in fact the best and have no equal in SA Rugby, they simply do not suit our rugby strengths.
I think it is foolish of us to try and play deck rugby, or take our opposition on in their strengths when we should rather focus on our own.
@Scrumdown –
He had everything to do with his selection, grabbed him from WP U.21 where he got no game time.
Only played Hamiltons (I think) seconds too…
But then it is WP rugby and we know what their talent identification is like…
@Scrumdown –
Strange thing is, I saw Danie (Despatch) against Chester(center, not wing, for Naval Academy Saldanha) against each other, March 1989….
Can you believe that!
At an annual rugby day in Veldrift, of all places.
Afterwards Danie and the boys came round and spoke to Tommie Laoubscher, Jan Bellie Theart….and a a bunch of us around the fire….and he pointed to Chester boarding the army bus and said, ‘Daar gaan n Springbok’.
Will never forget that….
Thanks Morne,
I’m trying to get my head around a few points, so please be bear with me:
1) You are on record in saying that Jake got us a far as he could. In which areas did we need to improve and why?
2) How does the arial/no fetcher game that you are proposing here differ from Jake’s one?
3) Does the arial bomb game’s success not rely on a specialist fetcher once the opposition player has been tackled, or is that the role of the arial bomb chaser who also has to double-up as a fetcher?
4) Is this arial game the one that is often referred to as the one based on “our traditional strenghts” and is it the only strengths we have. If so, how do we explain other great fetchers from the past e.g. Jan Boland Coetzee and the current crop?
5) In an era where any advantage a team has buys you one or two Tests grace before the opposition figures you out, is it wise to remain limited to one gameplan only?
@Pietman – @Morné – Francois Hougaard, another player from WP, wich they didn’t identify. I think he is going to play for the Boks soon. Do you guys think he is a better wing than a scrummy. I think he’s a better wing.
@fender –
Easy, different breakdown rules in Jake’s time.
@rugbybal – Or maybe the WP boys just prefer playing winning rugby up there in PTA
@rugbybal –
He is an allrounder, can play anywhere, like Ruan.
And like I used to be.
That’s why he will get nowhere, like I did 🙂
@Pietman – He is such an evasive runner. Fast and very lethal. BTW I wonder what where the Natal schools wing is playing his rugby nowadays. Forgot his name.
@fender –
1) You are on record in saying that Jake got us a far as he could. In which areas did we need to improve and why?
We needed (and still do) need to convert our strike rate in the opposition half and work to control possession more. Our strike rate in scoring when in the opposition half was quite low, our strike rate on defense (in our own half) was one of the best. We needed to work more on getting our hands on more ball, and scoring once in oppo half, i.e. be more dynamic on attack.
2) How does the arial/no fetcher game that you are proposing here differ from Jake’s one?
Not much at all, apart from converting and improving our strike in the opposition half i.e., attacking dynamic.
3) Does the arial bomb game’s success not rely on a specialist fetcher once the opposition player has been tackled, or is that the role of the arial bomb chaser who also has to double-up as a fetcher?
A fetcher might win the odd turn over ball from an areal game, but so should any player really as the oppo player is isolate more often. What you do is you take the support players away from around the fetcher or deck player to successfully launch a phased play assault. Fetchers are seldom great ball carriers.
4) Is this arial game the one that is often referred to as the one based on “our traditional strenghts” and is it the only strengths we have. If so, how do we explain other great fetchers from the past e.g. Jan Boland Coetzee and the current crop?
Definately not (our only strengths), but it supports our primary strengths in keeping the ball dynamic (moving and moving their forwards and splitting them) and avoids our opposition to easily resort to deck play, phased play type attacks. Also, it forces oppo teams to play a kicking game too (under pressure) which more often results in line outs (one of our strengths). And of course, gives us field position (X axis).
I do not know Jan Boland Coetzee sorry, but I would ask how many ‘fetchers’ in the sense discussed here have SA produced when it is commonly accepted that the guy that started deck play as we know it today was Josh Kronfeld?
5) In an era where any advantage a team has buys you one or two Tests grace before the opposition figures you out, is it wise to remain limited to one gameplan only?
Absolutely not and this is one are where Jake was limited in my humble view. Which is again, high Z axis means ball in the air, ball in the air means dynamic rugby not static, easily defendable and predictable rugby.
You will find it difficult to plan agains dynamic rugby, but quite easy to negate static rugby.
@rugbybal –
Better scrummy in my view – much better than Adams.
@Morné –
If I had a choice however, I would play him at 10 develop him into a 10.
I still maintain our best 10’s in SA got stuck in playing 9, just a pity they were damn good 9’s! 🙂
@fender –
IN fact all your questions can be answered with one simple example.
Just look at what the 97/98 Boks achieved!!!
We need that back!
Thanks for the detailed explanation Morne. I’ve got more than enough to mull over now, hehe!!
Please keep these insights coming.
Habana: 1.79m, 94kg
Hougaard: 1.79, 86kg
Met die wete dat FDP ten minste tot 2011 nog by die Bulle gaan wees, en dat jy nie so goeie speler soos FH uit selfs jou beginspan kan hou nie, dink ek dit is goed dat hul hom nou grootmaak, saam vd Heever, om die Bulle se S14 vleuels te wees volgende jaar. Hy kan selfs buitesenter speel saam met WO, met Jaco op vleuel.
Ons ken Habana se spoed, maar ek weet nog nie hoe vinnig FH is nie. Hy lyk baie blitsig oor die eerste paar meters, maar weet nie of hy die spoed het om weg te hardloop vir ander nie. Hy sal ook nog gewig moet aansit, in die 90’s moet kom om ‘n goeie vleuel te wees op S14 vlak.
So terloops, toe ek die statistiek gaan kyk het op die BB se webtuiste, toe kon ek nie Habana se ‘profile’ vind onder al die CB spelers nie (al die ander bokbulle is daar). Lyk my die BB het hul sommer nou al klaar gewip vir hom, en gaan hom sommer direk na die 3N afgee, of op die bank laat sit ? 🙂
O ja, middag al die mense.
@Pietman – Ek wonder wat sou ou Danie uitmaak van al hierdie gameplans, en zones etc etc….Hy sou net die gap vat as hy daar is en die manne se hele gameplan omverwerp!
@Polla –
Se jy!
Wie was ons beste senterpaar, vanaf Danie se dae ?
Michael du Plessis en Danie Gerber ?
@rugbybal –
Ja, wat was sy naam tog nou weer, demmit!
Sal my later byval…..begin met n ‘S’.
@bdb –
Ja, moontlik.
Of broer Willie en Danie.
Enige DuPlessis!
@bdb – Dis waar het hom nog nie flat out gesien nie. Ek dink Habana was ‘n paar kilos ligter ‘n paar jaar terug. FH sal die spier massa aansit, ek is seker. Ek sal hom graag wil sien in die jaar eind toer vir die bokke, maar miskien is dit ‘n bietjie vroeg, hy kort super 14 ervaring.
Ek twyfel of die bulls Habana uit die mix sal hou in die CB. Ek hoop dis ‘n tegniese fout.
Ek het in een van hierdie Noord-Suid rugby legend golfdae gespeel toe ek vir een oudspeler vra wat hy dink van die moderne game met al sy ontledings en sones en gamebooks en tacklezones en wat ook al…Hy het toe spesifiek die storie van DG vertel wat hier teen die einde van sy loopbaan glo vir een coach sou se, “steek daai boek in jou gat op en gee my net die bol!”
51 @Pietman – ja, Willie was die veiliger natuurliker senter, Michael die onortodokse verrassende speler.
@Pietman – Google, my beste pal. EMIL SCHWARTZ
51 @rugbybal – nie ‘n goeie tegniese fout nie, maar seker een. Habana en BB CB finale is ook nie die beste van vriende nie(2005/2008), so ons sal maar sien wat gebeur.
Tien teen een gaan Habana sy hammie skeur in saterdag se ‘finaal’ teen die AB’s, as hy die wendrie druk in die doodsnikke van die wedstryd. Dan is hy in elk geval uit vir die res van die jaar. As dit die oppoffering is wat ons BB moet doen, vir volk en vaderland, dan is dit goed so ! 😉
Beste Springbok senterpaar was Tjol Lategan en Ryk van Schoor (daai tyd), Ian Kirkpatrick en John Gainsford (bietjie later), Mannetjies Roux en Joggie Jansen(nog later),Peter Whipp en Johan Oosthuisen( nog bietjie later) en dan Willie du Plessis en Danie Gerber….nou en en vir ewig…
@bdb – Dis tyd dat Habana opmaak in CB vir 2005 en 2008. Ek dink hy gaan 100% gee tot die einde toe by die bulle, dis in sy karakter. Dammit ons moet wen Saterdag!
@rugbybal –
Ons gaan op onse moer kry Saterdag, hoor my lied….
Maak jou reg vir een hengse geveg in die modder in Hamilton.
Hulle wag vir ons.
@Pietman – Oom Ryk is nou die dag oorlede. Sy seun het hierdie jaar die WP 0/16 Grant Khomo span afgerig.
@Polla –
Sowaar, oom Ryk oorlede?
My bpa vertel my daai man het alles vrek ge-tekkel.
Users Online
Total 48 users including 0 member, 48 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,507,273 Page Impressions
_